Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/4/2018

Shri Maan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

05 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/4/2018
Date of Institution	:	01/01/2018
Date of Decision	:	05/03/2019

 

Shri Maan Singh s/o Sh. Thakur Singh, resident of H.No.2684, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd., Plot No.2, Punj Sr. Premises Kalkaji Industries Area, New Delhi 110019. [Now Havells India Limited, QRG Towers, 2D, Sector 126, Expressway, Noida-201304 UP].

2.     M/s Meharsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO 820, Sector 22-A, Opp. Parade Ground Chandigarh

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Arun Bansal, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of allegations are, the complainant had purchased a Lloyd LED TV from OP-2 against total consideration of Rs.24,900/- which was manufactured by OP-1.  Maintained, at the time of installation of LED, it was found defective and screen was damaged which was changed by OP-2.  It is further the case, after a few days of installation of LED TV, complainant found a small black point at the left side of the LED TV and with passage of time the said point increased day by day. It was within warranty/guarantee from the date of purchase. The complainant lodged complaint with OP-2 after which OP-2 visited and replied that it was a screen defect and is not covered under guarantee/warranty.  Thereafter OP-2 also advised the complainant to discuss the matter with the manufacturer OP-1, however, no action was taken. Hence the present consumer complaint.
2.         OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of complaint being not maintainable.  It is the case that there was panel damage which was not covered under the limitation of warranty, therefore, the complaint was liable to pay charges before TV was put in order.  Reference was made to a decision of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 did not contest the consumer complaint and allowed itself to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 2.4.2018.
4.         Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.         Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         Per pleadings of the parties, at the time of purchase, the LED was covered in a box.  It was opened by the installer of OP-2 and even on opening of that it is the case that the panel was found damaged which was replaced and changed by OP-2 and the television was thereafter installed successfully.  Even for the own fault of OPs, they want to pass on the buck on the complainant.  How he could damage panel which was in a sealed packing of the OPs.  This itself shows, there was some defect in the panel which was of their own replaced by OP-2 even at the time of installation of television.
8.         Per pleadings of the parties and the documents produced, a reference was made since the panel was again found damaged on 5.10.2017 during the warranty period, but, since it was not covered under the warranty, therefore, the complainant had to pay for it which he had not paid and, therefore, defect was not repaired.  Our attention was drawn to the contents of the job sheet (Ex.R-1) which shows that the special instruction mentioned was lining issue and in the job sheet it was mentioned that the panel was found damaged.  These are two inconsistent versions as lining issue was also existing in the television which was pointed out by the complainant and then the OPs had through their mechanic mentioned it to be a panel damage so as to throw it out of the coverage of warranty.  From this evidence led, we are of the view, there was manufacturing defect in the TV or say on the part of the OPs and they are not ready to get it repaired. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount paid by him.
9.         OP-1 has produced on record a copy of the order (Annexure R-4) which shows that it is of District Forum, North Goa and cannot be acted as a precedent unless it was a judgment from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Court, National Commission or State Commission.  Hence, it cannot be relied upon and even more so, facts of the relied on case and that of the present consumer complaint are distinguishable and not similar one and the reasons are, in the present case, even on the date of installation of the LED, there was a damage to the panel which was replaced by OP-2 of their own.  OP-2 had opted not to contest the present case which means, they have nothing to say qua the allegations levelled and in this situation both the manufacturer and trader are liable jointly and severally.
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed.  OPs are directed as under :-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.24,900/-to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of LED i.e. 25.1.2017 till realization.  The complainant shall, however, return the defective LED to the OPs.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/03/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President